2009-07-25, 04:10 | Link #3381 | |
Le fou, c'est moi
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 34
|
Her...argumentative tactics are interesting. To put it simply, as a whole they serve as an excellent example of what an educated individual could do to mask his or her...ugly sentiments.
A sharp and precise reading of her rhetoric would show rampant abuse of logical fallacies. Pretty sounding ones for the ears that wish to hear the music, great for the Singaporean Legislature to feel good about, but naturally drives other law professors up the wall, and actual homosexuals will hear a very different, virulent tune from it. Try for example, "'Sexual minorities' and 'sexual orientation' are vague terms – covering anything from homosexuality, bestiality, incest, paedophilia – do all these minority sexual practices merit protection?" This is Fallacy 101, the slippery slope. What's more, it's a cheap rhetorical trick to compare very very different behaviors and concepts. And finally, they camouflage the very simple idea that homosexuals are being persecuted under the law. Smoke, mirrors, tricks. Even if I "agree" with her views I will feel extremely dishonest not to point out how her arguments are rhetorics of scare, victimization, and hate. She has become the victim, she says. The homosexuals are at fault, she says. They are deviants, she says (in prettier terms). Death threats? No, that's just wrong. Scorn? Why, I wonder whatever she did to deserve them...oh. As for your devil's advocate points, however: "Moral Imperialism" is an interesting concept, I won't deny the existence of a bias, after all human rights develop as a Western philosophical tradition...yet it is also an excuse for a "society" to oppress an individual. One proud nationalist denies the West's human rights view as moral imperialism, that his nation doesn't need foreign things, foreign opinions...then he proceeds to go back home and on the news is another "deviant" persecuted under the law. But of course, the deviants are against the common principles of this great society, all agreed upon by...you know, the ones with power and voice. Uh. Boundaries of societies blur and change, what is your society -- what are your societies? I, for one, I'm Asian-born, and is thoroughly frustrated whenever over the internet an Asian would tell me to shove my views because I'm a "Westerner" or that I'm "different," without knowing that I spent two-thirds of my life in the very same continent as theirs. Assuming, dismissing, excusing. Always, always, that excuse of moral imperialism. Since when are Asians incapable of individual thought, that most horrible of all deviances? Quote:
Let the bigots come out in the open. Let them say what they have to say -- then we tear them apart, word for word, until there is nothing left but the hate and fear that their words used to mask. NYU should have allowed her to go, voice her opinions, and hear the devastating rebuttals. |
|
2009-07-25, 05:02 | Link #3383 | |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
To the extent that some nations do try to push their own political agendas under the guise of "human rights", I agree that it is a form of "moral imperialism". At the very least, it is behaviour based on uninformed opinion about another society's values that may have developed under conditions very different from your own. To the extent that some nations use this argument to defend their actions against their own people (China or Burma, for example), I am frustrated by the continuing difficulties in defining values that are universally accepted by all people, regardless of race, language or religion. I believe Prof Thio could have contributed constructively to this debate. So, it's a shame that she chose not to take up the teaching stint. It's even more shameful that she chose to play martyr and blame the cancellation on the perceived militant "gay agenda". Because, as you've pointed out, it's no wonder why people should feel militant towards her, given her outrageous choice of words. So, too bad. Plenty of us Singaporeans were actually looking forward to seeing her grilled before an international audience. It's a shame that wouldn't be happening now. |
|
2009-07-25, 09:05 | Link #3384 | |||
封鎖された渋谷で
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Shibuya, Tokyo, Japan
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Dr. Thio, can you like just SHADDUP already? I mean, measure the water before swimming, yo. Like, if you can't swim well, don't jump into a 1.8 pool. Stay in the 1.2. We should not force our views on others especially if they already said 'no' repeatedly. Just a view from the other side of the fence... Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2009-07-25, 21:04 | Link #3386 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
A lecturer is an authority figure, in some form. They are teaching something to a group of people - the idea is that they know more than the others, and are sufficiently skilled, learned, or even "enlightened" to preach - er, teach - to students. A guest lecturer is arguably even more special than a standard full-time lecturer, because it means that there's something special about this particular person, such that the university is calling this person to give their own lecture over the standard lecturer. Would you really want someone with despicable views in such a position? A lecture hall is not a debate room; it is not for the students to challenge the lecturer (which would have the potential to get them into trouble on the grounds of being disruptive). To shift it to an extreme example, would you be OK with a big-name university having a Holocaust denier give a special lecture to a history class? My opinion is that I wouldn't. Sure, if the university does it as an example of how some people take a warped view on history or something to that extent, maybe it'd seem legit. But to call someone in as an expert, to teach a course based on their supposed expertise - you're not saying that their views are right, necessarily, but you're certainly giving them credit for them. Call her in to a question & debate session, maybe, but not to give a lecture - especially not on that subject where she has some needlessly hateful views.
__________________
|
|
2009-07-25, 22:15 | Link #3388 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Quote:
But that's the power of quoting out of context.... Quote:
|
||
2009-07-26, 04:51 | Link #3389 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
2009-07-26, 05:18 | Link #3390 |
~
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston
Age: 35
|
Bigots should not be teachers, and it's good that she resigned.
But it's important not to censor people or their views. I admire Columbia University for having Ahmadinejad give a speech on their campus two years ago. New York right now is in particular need of debate over gay rights with the state senate so close to having a majority in favor of gay marriage (although i don't see it happening before the next election). |
2009-07-26, 07:56 | Link #3391 |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Actually I was wondering if she was a secret agent for the conservative radical segment of AWARE in Singapore. Though most of my male friends say, "Women. Give them power, and they give you twice the trouble.", I agree at a mere 0.001%, truthfully saying.
Given how the AWARE saga and this fold out within a few months short, it only serves to make the fight for gender equality even harder, thanks to stupid people as such. I digress, and my take on this opinion is pretty pragmatic. She is supposed to be there to teach, not to air some stupid view on homosexuality. Our differences is only our perceptions, otherwise, we are all humans. Gays, lesbians, bisexual, why should we even bloody care about their gender inclination as long as they show tolerance for others? If she is anymore intelligent, she would have added a disclaimer, "This is just my point of view, feel free to debate it." Besides, love isn't just about procreation. Mass procreate at some laboratory (IVF with artificial wombs) if you stand on "God's side". Screw the natural order of things. P.S Yes, I am a staunch supporter of Mugivision. And no, I am not crazy.
__________________
|
2009-07-26, 09:10 | Link #3392 | |
封鎖された渋谷で
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Shibuya, Tokyo, Japan
Age: 35
|
Quote:
|
|
2009-07-26, 09:47 | Link #3393 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Which isn't to say that it's a bad idea, just that it's an idea that suffers from a lot of potential roadblocks. Particularly given that the original idea and offer wasn't started with that format in mind - I can't imagine Dr. Thio being quite so agreeable to that, nor would many others be OK with it on such short notice. As far as hosting speakers with incendiary views in the future, though, a debate-style format could be nice... depending on the format of the class. (I would find it a waste of time and unviersity resources to have a creationist in my biology lecture hall, for example, regardless of whether a standard scientist were there to debate points.)
__________________
|
|
2009-07-26, 10:53 | Link #3394 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
And 428, no. Marimite is a little too mild to be considered something thought-worthy. Besides, such purists would treat light novels as mere entertainment and scoff at such "unsightly, wanton reads" (so says a female church pastor at such literature, as a friend had related). I would suggest something by Radclyffe, but obviously, such people need to read things like Lolita and Kiss The Girls to make them realise that moral relativity is a hypocritical assumption, because what one perceive is ultimately what one believes. Morality is just another argument to elevate themselves so they can look down on others.
__________________
|
|
2009-07-26, 22:24 | Link #3395 | ||
Lurker
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New York City
|
AT&T blocks 4chan
Quote:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/26...g-to-get-ugly/ Quote:
__________________
|
||
2009-07-26, 22:58 | Link #3396 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Quote:
|
|
2009-07-26, 23:17 | Link #3397 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Also, the "special rights" that homosexuals ask for are pretty much the normal rights (to be married to who they want) as laid out in the 1979 Geneva Convention of Human Rights, Part 2, Article 2 : 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps. in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant. I think the problem lies in the first line regarding sex, as often defined by male and female only, and sometimes heterosexual. Gender identity is dependent on psychology, so if you think that you are a gay, it is a personal opinion, which is also included in the first line. Time to petition for amendments.
__________________
|
|
2009-07-27, 00:09 | Link #3398 |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
^ Woah, jumping the gun here. That was most certainly not what was being proposed back in 2007, that is, the right to same-sex marriage.
All that was being debated back then was the proposed repeal of Section 377A, on the basis that since the State no longer wishes to criminalise anal sex between consenting heterosexual couples, then it would be unjust to criminalise the same action carried out between two consenting adult males. It's very important not to conflate the two issues, because it makes it so much easier for conservatives to then say: "See, that's why there is a slippery slope we must guard against. Enough is enough. We draw the line here; we will prohibit anal sex between two adult males." |
2009-07-27, 00:19 | Link #3399 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
OT : Posting from the office eh? Naughty naughty.... Thanks for reminding me about that and pointing the second paragraph out. It does make sense not to conflate the two issues, but it seems that some are willing to make a mountain out of this so they can bring in "morally right" rhetorics.
__________________
|
|
2009-07-27, 00:23 | Link #3400 | |
Good-Natured Asshole.
Join Date: May 2007
Age: 34
|
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
Thread Tools | |
|
|